TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., are manufacturers of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 28 & 29 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from November, 1995 to July, 1996, the appellants availed modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. The final products were exported under bond and as provided under Rule 57F (13) of Central Excise Act, 1944, they filed refund of accumulated modvat credit through four applications dated 23.04.1996, 20.08.1996, 01.11.1996 and one more application dated 01.11.1996. 2.2 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Muradabad Division, issued them SCN No. V(18)/112/REF/96/1480-1481 dated 01.06.1999. The contention in the said SCN was that through Notification No.6/97 (NT) dated 01.03.1997, un-utilized modvat credit available with the manufacturer as on 1 ^st March, 1997, would lapse. In view of the same, it was contended that since, the entire credit was lapsed, no credit was left with the appellants to be refunded against the four applications filed under Rule 57F (13) by the appellants. So, it was proposed in the said SCN that their claims would be rejected. The appellants submitted their reply to the SCN stating that the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 2004 before the Id.Commissioner (Appeals). In the mean time, The Revenue carried this Tribunal's Order dated 08.09.2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the said matter through Civil Appeal No. 1541 of 2005 and gave its ruling on the said Order as reported in 2005 (182) ELT 310 (SC) (in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. J. K. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd). For better appreciation, the said order is reproduced below : "Delay condoned. 2. Issue notice. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent appears and takes notice. 4. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. Leave granted. 6. Vide judgment dated 14-5-2003 the Tribunal disposed of an appeal, the operative part whereof reads as under, "The Larger Bench has thus divided the period into two parts - (1) cases where refund claim has been filed prior to 1-3-1997 in which situation refund is admissible; (2) cases where refund claim has been filed on or after 1-3-1997 in which situation the refund will n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f refund. In the event of the Tribunal arriving at a finding that some amount is due and payable to the respondent by way of refund and the Revenue has unreasonably withheld the refund then the amount may be directed to be refunded with interest, may be compound interest, depending on the opinion formed by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms. 11. Parties through their respective learned counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28th March, 2005". The matter was remanded to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the above stated order. 2.7 The appellants moved a Misc. Application before this Tribunal in the matter which was remanded through the above stated order. The Misc.Order No.M/101/2005 dated 09.05.2005 was issued by this Tribunal dismissing the said Misc. Application on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed an appealable order which was under appeal with the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeals before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) were decided through Order-in-Appeal Nos.305-308-CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 16.12.2005, wherein the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Order N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parameter taken for deciding admissible or inadmissible modvat credit for refund, are not as per law. Some of the credit was denied stating that it is hit by limitation as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Some of the modvat credit was denied stating that the documents, such as, shipping bills etc. were not available, whereas the fact is that the goods were exported , bank realization was submitted and the proof of export were issued by the competent authority and the bond through which export under bond, was allowed and released after acceptance of proof of export. It was further contended that one of the refund claim was rejected stating that more than one refund claim was filed in the same quarter. Further, there are many rulings that the filing of one refund application in a quarter, is part of the procedure and not substantial provision and they further contended that the change in the formula as accepted by the Revenue for deciding the quantum of modvat credit admissible for refund from the total turnover and turnover for export is acceptable to them. 4. Heard the Id.Counsel, who reiterates the above submissions. He has submitted case l....